ETHICS AND MORALITY. PERSONAL ETHICS VS INSTITUTIONAL ETHICS, OR FINDING GOD VS FORCING GOD. PT 2.

Unfortunately, throughout Human History, Many Religions and Faiths 

have exported Their Religious Beliefs and Practices at the point of a Sword.  Adapt or Die.

Sometimes it is Different Denominations or Sects within the Same RELIGION, supposedly Worshiping the same GOD, who have engaged in Fights to the Death.

Yet, there are cases of Empires and Nations showing Tolerance to the Belief Systems of People who Inhabit recently acquired Territory or Land.

What causes One form of Government to behave in a manner that Persecutes, and another to show Understanding and Acceptance?

I think it may lie with THE RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD, OR THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH THAT IS ESPOUSED BY THOSE IN POWER OR AUTHORITY, THAT WILL GIVE US AN INDICATION OF HOW OPPOSITION RELIGIOUS GROUPS WILL BE TREATED.

To Clarify, consider the following Two examples.

Government # 1 is Ceded Land that was Formerly controlled by an opposing Nation.  This Government is now responsible for Administering and Enforcing Economic, Social and Legal Programs that are part of its Infrastructure, into the Newly Acquired Territory.

There is a Problem;  The Dominant Religion in this Area, by number of Adherents, is Relatively Small compared to other Faiths within Government #1's Borders.

However, the New Government has a Policy that Recognizes the Following:  THAT LAWS GOVERNING MORAL BEHAVIOR AND RELIGIOUS FAITH, ONLY ADDRESS ISSUES THAT WILL AFFECT THE STABILITY OR PROPER FUNCTION OF THE PRESENT FORM OF AUTHORITY. This may include such Concepts as CIVIL RIGHTS, TAXATION, CRIMINAL ACTS etc.

THIS GIVES US THE FOLLOWING:  RELIGIOUS FAITH AND WORSHIP ARE MORALLY NEUTRAL CONCEPTS LEFT TO INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION, AND ARE NOT TO BE SANCTIONED OR PUNISHED UNLESS THEY INTERFERE WITH THE GOVERNMENTS ABILITY TO SUCCESSFULLY OPERATE.

LOOK FOR THE SECOND EXAMPLE, ALONG WITH THE COMPARISON AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO, IN PART 3.

FEATURE ARTICLES. SELF- DEFENSE, AND STAND-YOUR GROUND LAWS. PT 3.

FEATURE ARTICLES.

SELF- DEFENSE, AND STAND-YOUR GROUND LAWS.  PT 3.

The real danger of recent Court Decisions, is how juries are interpreting Stand- Your Ground Laws, and the precedent it creates.

Are we now living in a country that allows Bigotry, Racism, and other immoral and irrational mindsets as an excuse to commit murder.

Consider, the following two statements;

- The Use of Deadly Force is justified, if a Reasonable Person believes that their life or the life of another, is in immediate danger.

- If the individual believes that their life, or the life of another is in immediate danger, Deadly Force is allowed under the law.

Now, they seem on the surface, to say the seem thing.  However, there is a major difference, and it must be addressed.

In the first example, the word Reasonable is used, so Deadly Force must be justified by what a normal and rational person would do, given the same circumstances.  In practice, this is usually measured by the Actions, Demeanor and Physical Threat that the attacker has exhibited during the altercation.  In other words, the victim had no other choice, and behaved appropriately.

However, the second example removes the word Reasonable. This allows the Defense to claim that the personality and belief system of someone using Lethal Force, be the deciding factor for justifying Self- Defense.

This creates the following;  What if someone holds an Irrational view of different categories of people, that is not grounded in fact and is Demonstrably false. These opinions are contrary to what a Reasonable person would believe, for they are purely subjective in nature. These World Views are products of Hate, Prejudice and Preconceived ideas about others.

If these views are considered valid, in terms of arguing Self- Defense, and the individual...

                           

• ...believes that certain Ethnic and Racial groups are always armed and looking for an excuse to kill.
• ...associates Members of Certain Religions with Terrorism.
• ...is of the opinion that Sexual Orientation makes some people unable to control their behavior.

... then they are justified in using Lethal Force, BECAUSE OF THE BELIEF THAT THEIR CONCLUSIONS ARE TRUE, REGARDLESS OF THE REASONING THAT UNDERLINES SUCH JUDGMENTS. 

If such a Defense is allowed to stand, then we have given every Hate Group a license to kill.

Date-  6/15/2014.

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE IRAN NUCLEAR TREATY- AVOIDING REALITY. PT 3.

As the Vote to Approve the IRAN NUCLEAR TREATY in Congress Approaches, we are again Subjected to Meaningless Rhetoric that Completely Misses the Point, and is USED TO PROMOTE FEAR AND HATE INSTEAD OF REASON AND PRAGMATISM.  So, let us again see if we can Cut Through Bluster and Noise, and find Common Ground.

First, Ignore the Text, and Toss Out Any Objections That Have Been Raised Denouncing the Agreement.  Go into an EXAMINATION OF THIS TREATY, OR ANY TREATY FOR THAT MATTER, AS A DISINTERESTED OBSERVER WHO HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH FINDING THE MOST EQUITABLE SOLUTION THAT WOULD BENEFIT ALL SIDES.

#1-  Listen to ALL SIDES OF THE SUBJECT MATTER TO DETERMINE WHAT EACH SIDE VALUES MOST OF ALL, AND CONSIDER THE ELEMENTS THAT SEEM TO BE OF LITTLE CONCERN TO EACH.

#2-  What Category do the Most Important Goals of Agreeing to a TREATY FALL INTO, FOR EACH PARTICIPANT?

-  ECONOMIC-  IMPROVING INFRASTRUCTURE, OR IMPORT/EXPORT 

OPPORTUNITIES.

-  MILITARY/PROTECTION FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES.

-  STABILITY-  ALLIES TO MAINTAIN GOOD RELATIONS, OR PLEDGE 

OF SUPPORT.

AMONG OTHER THINGS.

#3-  TO MEET THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT EACH SIDE IS LOOKING FOR, WHAT WILL THE OPPOSITION HAVE TO AGREE TO, OR 

SACRIFICE TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN?

#4-  IS ONE SIDE , OR THE OTHER, PUSHING AN AGENDA THAT THE

OTHER SIDE COULD NOT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO AGREE TO.

IS ONE SIDE OFFERING JUST TOKEN CONCESSIONS, WHILE DEMANDING

EXTENSIVE SACRIFICES FROM THE OPPOSITION?

As I Mentioned in an Earlier Post, GOVERNMENTS DO NOT ENTER INTO THESE NEGOTIATIONS FOR NO REASON.  EACH SIDE HAS SOMETHING THE OTHER WANTS.

This Leads us to the FINAL STEP-  IF THE SITTING GOVERNMENT PROPOSING THE FINISHED TREATY IS FACED BY INTERNAL OPPOSITION, THEY MUST ALSO BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS.  OPPOSING A TREATY, OR ITS COMPONENTS, IS EASY TO SAY, BUT TO OFFER NO REALISTIC ALTERNATIVES IS JUST OBSTRUCTIONIST POLITICS.  

Date-  9/2/2015.

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE IRAN NUCLEAR TREATY- AVOIDING REALITY. PT 2.

So now we have Two or more Governments sitting at the Negotiation Table, each

One Probably Aware to a Certain Extent of Why the Others are there. Before going on

with Further Analysis, it is Important to remember the Following:

-  THIS IS AN ADVERSARIAL RELATIONSHIP, AND THE HOSTILITY BETWEEN THOSE INVOLVED IN NEGOTIATIONS IS GOING TO SHAPE THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY ARE CONDUCTED.

Each Side can CREATE AN IMMEDIATE TONE FOR THE NEGOTIATIONS, BY SIMPLY TREATING THE OPPOSING SIDE AS:

-  A PERENNIAL ENEMY WHO CAN NEVER BE TRUSTED.

                                            OR

-  AN OPPONENT ON THE WORLD STAGE, WHO MUST 

EARN TRUST BY SHOWING GOOD FAITH AND FLEXIBILITY.  ALSO,

ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THEIR MOTIVATIONS MAY BE DIFFERENT,  

BUT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED VALID ENOUGH TO HAVE AN OPEN

DIALOGUE.

                                             OR 

-   A POSSIBLE FUTURE ALLY OR FRIEND, GIVEN A CHANGE IN

CIRCUMSTANCES.  ALSO, UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PERSON OR PERSONS YOU ARE NEGOTIATING WITH NOW, MAY BE THOSE WHO

HOLD THE REIGNS OF POWER IN THE FUTURE.

WHILE MANY WILL NAIVELY CLAIM THAT COUNTRIES LIKE IRAN 

WILL NEVER BE A FRIEND OR ALLY FORGET THAT THE ART 

OF DIPLOMACY IS TO DO WHAT IS IN YOUR COUNTRIES BEST 

INTEREST, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.  THIS DOESN'T MEAN 

GIVING UP YOUR IDEALS, AND BECOMING WHAT YOU FEAR AND 

HATE.  IT'S ADAPTING TODAYS SITUATION, TO LESSONS FROM THE 

PAST, BOTH GOOD AND BAD.  

Just in the 20th Century, think of the COUNTRIES WHO WERE AT ONE TIME 

ALLIES OF THE U.S. WHO BECAME FOES, OR VICE- VERSA, FOES WHO LATER BECAME ALLIES.

Date-  8/11/2015.